| Title |
Legal issues in governing genetic biobanks: the Italian framework as a case study for the implications for citizen’s health through public-private initiatives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Genetics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12687-017-0328-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cinzia Piciocchi, Rossana Ducato, Lucia Martinelli, Silvia Perra, Marta Tomasi, Carla Zuddas, Deborah Mascalzoni |
| Abstract |
This paper outlines some of the challenges faced by regulation of genetic biobanking, using case studies coming from the Italian legal system. The governance of genetic resources in the context of genetic biobanks in Italy is discussed, as an example of the stratification of different inputs and rules: EU law, national law, orders made by authorities and soft law, which need to be integrated with ethical principles, technological strategies and solutions. After providing an overview of the Italian legal regulation of genetic data processing, it considers the fate of genetic material and IP rights in the event of a biobank's insolvency. To this end, it analyses two case studies: a controversial bankruptcy case which occurred in Sardinia, one of the first examples of private and public partnership biobanks. Another case study considered is the Chris project: an example of partnership between a research institute in Bolzano and the South Tyrolean Health System. Both cases seem to point in the same direction, suggesting expediency of promoting and improving public-private partnerships to manage biological tissues and biotrust to conciliate patent law and public interest. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,030,867
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#143
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,019
of 318,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.